HARI DASS SHARMA versus VIKAS SOOD & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 29-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 5 S.C.R. 1029 
HARi DASS SHARMA 
v. 
VIKAS SOOD & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 2013) 
APRIL 29, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Rent Control - H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 -
s.14(3)(c) & 14(4)- Eviction order passed by Rent Controller 
A 
B 
- On ground that appellant-landlord bona fide required the 
C 
tenanted building for purposes of addition and alteration of 
the building or re-building - Eviction order maintained by High 
Court - But direction passed by High Court that only on the 
valid revised/renewed building plan being sanctioned by the 
competent authority, such eviction order shall be available for D 
execution and thereafter the executing court· shall allow 
reasonable time to the respondents-tenants for vacating the 
property and delivering possession to appellant-landlord -
Propriety - Held: Once High Court maintained the order of 
eviction, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession 
E 
of the building to the landlord and could only ask for 
reasonable time to deliver vacant possession to the landlord 
- s.14(3)(c) does not require that building plans should be 
sanctioned by the local authorities as a condition precedent 
to the entitlement of the landlord for e'(iction of the tenant -
F 
Direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could 
only be executed on the revised plan of the building being 
approved clearly contrary to s.14(4) and the proviso thereto 
- Time granted to respondents to vacate the building within 
3 months - Respondents can apply for re-entry into the 
building in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of s. 14(3) 
G 
of the Act introduced by the Himacha/ Pradesh Urban Rent 
Control (Amendment) Act, 2009. 
The appellant-landlord filed applications under 
1~9 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 
A Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for 
eviction of respondents-tenants on grounds that he bona 
fide required the tenanted building for purposes of 
addition and alteration of the building or re-building. The 
Rent Controller allowed the applications. The order of 
B Controller was upheld by the Appellate Authority. 
The respondents filed Revision petitions before the 
High Court which maintained the orders of eviction but 
directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building 
plan being sanctioned by the competent authority, the 
C order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High 
Court further directed that the valid revised/renewed 
sanctioned or approved building plan shall be produced 
before the executing court whereupon the executing 
court shall allow reasonable time to the respondents-
D tenants for vacating the property and delivering 
possession to the appellant-landlord. The directions 
passed by the High Court were challenged in the instant 
appeals. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A reading of clause (c) of sub-section (3) 
of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 
would show that a landlord may apply to the Controller 
· for an order directing the temmt to put the landlord in 
F possession in case of any bullding if it is required bona 
fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding or 
making thereto any substantial additions or alterations 
and that such building or rebuilding or addition or 
alteration cannot be carried out without the building 
G being vacated. Section 14(3)(c) does not require that the 
building plans should have been duly sanctioned by the 
local authorities as a condition precedent to the 
entitlement of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. The 
availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local 
H authorities is not an ingredient of Section 14(3)(c) of the 
HARi DASS SHARMA v. VIKAS SOOD & ORS. 
1031 
Act and, therefore, could not be a condition precedent to A 
the entitlement of the landlord for eviction. of the te_nant, 
but depending on the facts and circumstances of each 
case, the Court may look into the availability of building 
plans duly sanctioned by the local authorities for the 
purpose of determining the bonafides of the landlord. 
B 
[Para 8) [1037-G-H; 1038-A-B, F-G] 
1.2. Once the High Court maintained the order of 
eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14(4) of 
the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant 
possession of the building to the landlord and could only C 
ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of 
the building to the landlord and hence the direct

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.